Although low bone mineral density (BMD) is strongly associated with increased fracture risk, up to 50% of those who suffer fractures are not detected as high-risk patients by BMD testing. Thus, new approaches may improve identification of those at increased risk for fracture by in vivo assessment of altered bone tissue properties, which may contribute to skeletal fragility. Recently developed reference point indentation (RPI) allows for the assessment of cortical bone indentation properties in vivo using devices that apply cyclic loading or impact loading, but there is little information available to assist with the interpretation of RPI measurements. Our goals were to use human cadaveric tibia to determine: 1) the associations between RPI variables, cortical bone density, and morphology; 2) the association between variables obtained from RPI systems using cyclic, slow loading versus a single impact load; and 3) the age-related differences in RPI variables. We obtained 20 human tibia and femur pairs from female donors (53-97years), measured total hip BMD using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, assessed tibial cortical microarchitecture using high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pQCT), and assessed cortical bone indentation properties at the mid-tibial diaphysis using both the cyclic and impact-based RPI systems (Biodent and Osteoprobe, respectively, Active Life Scientific, Santa Barbara, CA). We found a few weak associations between RPI variables, BMD, and cortical geometry; a few weak associations between measurements obtained by the two RPI systems; and no age-related differences in RPI variables. Our findings indicate that in cadaveric tibia from older women RPI measurements are largely independent of age, femoral BMD, and cortical geometry. Furthermore, measurements from the cyclic and impact loading RPI devices are weakly related to each other, indicating that each device reflects different aspects of cortical bone indentation properties.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 April 2015.
All research outputs
#27,729,878
of 34,364,397 outputs
Outputs from BONE
#4,041
of 5,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#230,562
of 308,255 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BONE
#44
of 99 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,364,397 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,156 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 308,255 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 99 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
